One event changes attitude in UK-----how strange

In what way do you want the Irish to receive 'sovereignty'? Have all of Ireland occupied and the Irish put into reservations with virtually no rights of their own? What kind of 'sovereignty' is it the native Americans have over America? Over all, 100%, of America, that is? What rights do they have in regards to international affairs or treaties? What kind of sovereignty do they have at all?

Please, Lash, enlighten us. Do you wish a comparable brand of 'sovereignty' for the Irish?

I don't think comparisons are useful on this subject.

It will just devolve into squabbling.

However, if you insist, we will be discussing ALL of Britain's benevolent dabblings around the world, after which they will not compare favorably to anyone.

I thought you would sooner or later retire to that position, given what you stated on that other thread:



It's so easy, isn't it, Lash? Blame the other side for whatever they have done a thousand years ago, but when it comes to 'your own side', nobody is allowed to go further back than, uuuhmmm, the last two weeks.

I think that comparisons are useful. How else could we ever expect to learn from history? Especially when you have such an exquisit case of parallel historic events?

And, of course, we can compare ALL of America's benevolent dabblings around the world as well, if you want to. The mingling in Southern American affairs, for example. The mess created in Central America not so long ago. Plenty of stuff. But, as you say,



What do you think the Britains should do in Ulster NOW? Please, Lash, enlighten us.

OE--

I'll be glad to talk to you after I finish my current conversation. Funny thing. I rarely get to finish conversations with dlowan. She'll get in a bit of a pickle--then <shrugs>, someone else always shows up, asking questions in rapid succession and, wouldn't you know it, dlowan just slinks off.

Let her answer for herself.

I think we should all squeeze back into the Rift Valley or the Garden of Eden (see I like to accommodate all views)

On a more serious note. We have to deal wtih the present and the legacy of imperialism and colonialism of history and to some extent the imperialism of today. Trawling through history to exchange barbs is interesting but ultimately pointless. We need to focus on today.

Having said that - Oliver Cromwell was evil. :wink: There at least allow me my little burst. I feel better for it.

My mother is Irish and she married an Englishman but she still taught me a great little ditty I learned as a kid and never forgot. It was about the different flags:

"Green white and yeller for the little Irish feller.
Red, white and blue for the dirty English crew"

All said in a humorous tone of course

And of course there's the story about my grandfather and a truck load of Black and Tans but perhaps I'll leave that one for now.

Your trolling Lash? Simple - your turning this thread into a British bashing re Ireland - while ludicrously denying the relevance of your bashing arguments to your country.




Also your straw person re people supporting occupation of Ireland. Some of us have attempted to introduce some reality and perspective into your rants. This does not mean supporting anything.

Do you consider the majority of Ireland to be NOT sovereign?

Are you saying that the majority of Ireland considers itself to be dominated by England?

If you are, this was unknown to me - though I am aware of movements towards more devolution in Scotland and wales. As I understand it, Scotland is peacefully taking more and more sovereignty to itself.


British people - does Ireland feel still oppressed by England? (Be aware Lash, that Ireland is the name commonly used for most of the country - I keep being unclear whether you are referring to Ireland, or Northern Ireland)

Here are sone explanations of the Republic of ireland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland

As to Northern Ireland - damned if I know.

Here is an interesting bit from Wikipedia - I had thought the Protestants/Unionists (though I discover this split is over simplifying - there is way more mixture than I thought)

:

"When Northern Ireland was formed in 1921, Protestants dominated the state. Recent census data shows that Protestants now account for less than half the population of Northern Ireland for the first time, with Catholics only a few per cent less. (Though few abroad realise it, Northern Ireland has citizens who are neither Catholic or Protestant. The third biggest group, interestingly, is Chinese, and the province also has a small but long-standing Jewish community, with significant numbers of Hindus and Muslims of Indian and Pakistani birth or descent as well.) However, contrary to media reports, that does not mean that nationalists and unionists have equal numbers; some suggest that up to one fifth of Protestants harbour sympathies towards nationalism (even if they still vote for the mainstream Unionist parties), while as many as one-third of Catholics could be called 'soft unionists' (i.e., if given a choice and guarantees against discrimination, they'd prefer Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom rather than join with the Republic of Ireland, though they may vote for nationalist parties like the Social Democratic and Labour Party or a middle-of-the road Alliance Party.) Furthermore, a strong decline in the Catholic birthrate (through smaller family size, use of contraception or abortion, etc.) may slow down or even reverse the growth in the Catholic population. However that may be balanced in turn by an increased rate of emigration of young Protestants, often to study and then work in Britain. These young people are more likely to remain in the lands of their ancestors (England and Scotland) than nationalists. How these changes will affect the long-term number of Protestants and Catholics remains currently impossible to assess. Furthermore, until the issue is put to the test in a vote, it remains impossible to calculate with certainty how many Protestants in reality endorse nationalism and how many Catholics in reality endorse unionism.

One final historical point of interest: while southern unionism predominantly (though not exclusively) originated in Church of Ireland circles and the upper-middle to upper classes, northern unionism remains and has been predominantly (though not exclusively) associated with the working and middle classes and predominantly Presbyterian."


I had thought the Unionists still formed the majority - seemingly this is moot.

I would assume that one day the madness will pass and the christian/political civil war will fade away, (as it seems to be doing) and Northern Ireland will join the rest of the country.

My understanding of why the Brits have stayed is cos they have felt loyalty to the previous Protty majority - and have also feared the terible brutality of the killing that would have emerged if they left. I am happy to be corrected, but I do not think there has been any benefit to them in staying - and I think there has been ample evidence of reasons to worry if they suddenly left. Of course, they milked ireland for all it was worth previously - as conquerers do. I am not currently aware of benefits for Britain in being in Northern Ireland now. Are you?

I am happy to be instructed by any who actually know better. Me ancestors are as Irish (and British and French) as the next Aussie's - but I am fourth generation and have not made a study of the damnable Northern Irish situation.

I guess my very naive view has been that the English should just get out and let the idiots from both sides fight the damn thing out - presumably to have a bout of horrible carnage, and then some sort of settlement.

It is clear that the catholics in the north were once horribly discriminated against, but I understand most of this is corrected?

I have worked with a lot of Northern Irelanders - who tell the most chilling tales of the awful brutalities of both sides. Their view seemed to be that life would be fine if the zealots from both sides stopped being mad and allowed a slow evolution towards home rule. I guess my sense is that this is slowly happening? Especially as the Protestant Unionists are gradually outnumbered, and the generations born in hate slowly die out?


I am so sorry you thought I had deserted you Lash - sadly, I had to go to a birthday party.

I will disappear when life calls - and when your discourse degenerates into tantrum and such.



Let us by all means discuss Britain's age of colonisation.

We both, after all, enjoy the fruits of its success, and live in the lands of those it conquered and stripped of their sovereignty.

I suspect you will not find the Brits weirdly defensive about their history.

Actually, recognized Indian tribes seem to have bits and pieces of sovereignty, including federally recognized tribal courts. From the Wikipedia at Source


Also, the Constitution says:

That is, of course, true. But, as you say, those are mere 'bits and pieces of sovereignty'. I think.

On a side note: did you notice that 4 weeks ago, it was announced that Irish will be made the 21st official language of the EU?

Sorry, do you mean Gaelic???

Very funny, Brandon. Trying to be smart, aren't you? Yes, Gaelic, often referred to as Irish - by the Irish.

Of course, Gaelic is still spoken in parts of Scotland as well, especially in the Northern Highlands and on the Hebridean Islands, though the Gaeltacht areas in Ireland, where Irish (sorry, Gaelic) is still an everyday language are far bigger.

No, I just didn't know what you meant. Well, I didn't know that they had done that, but perhaps it will keep the language alive a bit.

I hope it will. Actually, I think that more people are interested in Irish nowadays and the overall situation seems to be better than it was not so long ago. There are many Irish radio stations, and you can watch your news on tv in Irish. Children learn Irish at school, and with Irish becoming an official EU language, all legislation approved by both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers will now be translated into Irish. Irish will be available at European Parliament plenary sessions and Council meetings.

It would certainly be a shame if that piece of human cultural heritage died out. Where are you, by the way, if it's not too personal?

Uh, oh, you guys are going to upset Rayban with all this talk about talking in a foreign language, even if it's Native to the place. Such smacking of multi-culturalism will not be tolerated.

I read the article Ray pasted, the one where Britain's woes are caused by multiculturalism and I see it differently. What a surprise! It isn't multi-culturalism that is the cause of these problems, it's the lack of it. The author even points this out:



Who gave up on that idea? Us, them? Doesn't the mere use of the words, US THEM imply giving up on the idea that there is no fighting racism if we think in terms of us-them. Rather, when the white guy rises to spew his insecurity of his lack of understanding Spanish, or the Mullah rises to spew his venom about the supposed immoral ways of Western Society or whoever is pushing the bounds of victimhood, all of them need to be confronted with the fact that were are bound together here on the earth and we have

What makes a young, educated man blow himself up on a subway train filled with his neighbors? Not mul·ti·cul·tur·al·ism . In a open multiculture he wouldn't have any anger or hate based on dis-respect, he would be respected. In a full multiculture (and I am making up these terms as I go along) there is no dominant group or elite, no one to strike out at, in other words, equality.

Joe(Meet you there.)Nation

Perhaps it would save you all a lot of bother if you took a couple of years off to assimilate the works of Malthus,Darwin,Gibbon,Spengler,The Bible,Veblen and the various offshoots which these have spawned.

Your dilettantism rather patronises the general topic
don't you think?What makes you think you have any worthwhile knowledge?

For the sake of my scorecard, could you define whom you are addressing?

dlowan's definition of trolling must be when people have an opinion that differs from hers. The Irish relationship with Britain was introduced long back in the thread and I have a right as much as anyone to address it. Is everyone's mention of it trolling? Just the people who disagree with dlowan?

She lies boldly when she says I didn't acknowledge a parallel relationship the US has with Native Americans. Such a bold lie because I brought my statement to the effect back and highlighted it. She merely makes up whatever suits her in her unending quest to muster a tower of self-righteousness--which must be oozing out of her ears by now.

For anyone else-- I wish the US was in a position to do for the Native Americans what the UK IS in a position to do for the Irish. I hope they will step off and allow the Irish autonomy and unified self rule.

You obviously seek to start a civil war.

Are you seriously suggesting that we have squandered all those lives and resources when all we had to do was "step off".You're a fool.

panzade-

One doesn't keep a personal scorecard on matters this serious.You should take up something simple like golf if you wish to keep score.